ArticleJournal of registry management2025
Leveraging Large Language Models for Real-World Data Evidence: A Framework for Automated Treatment Extraction and Data Harmonization.
Article in Journal of registry management, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The ability to comprehensively collect treatment information from cancer patient medical records would enable studies to evaluate real-world benefits and risks tied to specific treatments. Currently, it is difficult to systematically collect high-quality treatment information because it is often stored in unstructured text. Manually extracting and standardizing drug and regimen data is time-intensive. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) offer a potential solution for automated extraction of structured treatment information from clinical text. Objective: This study systematically evaluates the utility of four LLMs from the Llama family for automated extraction of oncology treatment information from clinical text. This information can guide researchers using cancer registry data to provide insights into cancer care and outcomes beyond clinical trials. Methods: Four instruction-tuned Llama models with varying parameter counts (1B, 3B, 8B, and 70B) were evaluated for their ability to extract treatment information from clinical documents. A unified oncology knowledge base integrating seven major public data sources was developed to standardize and normalize extracted entities-a critical step for harmonizing data from diverse sources. Extracted treatment data were compared against expert-annotated ground truth. Model performance was assessed using accuracy metrics (Precision, Recall, F1-Score) and operational feasibility metrics, including processing speed and structural compliance of the output. Results: A strong positive correlation was observed between model size and extraction accuracy. F1-score improved from 0.609 for the 1B model to 0.710 (3B), 0.807 (8B), and 0.828 (70B). While larger models demonstrated superior accuracy and compliance, they incurred higher computational costs. The modest performance difference between 8B and 70B suggests diminishing returns with increasing model size. Conclusions: LLMs represent a viable technology for automating oncology treatment extraction. The 8B-parameter model emerged as a highly effective option, balancing high accuracy and computational efficiency. Selecting an appropriate LLM for deployment in cancer registries involves a trade-off between desired accuracy and available operational resources. Harmonizing extracted entities with the oncology knowledge base facilitates standardized integration into common data models, enhancing data quality for real-world evidence analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42110485PMC13151750What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.